Saturday, May 24, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
James 1:1-12
I preached this sermon on James 1:1-12 while serving as interim pastor at First Baptist Church of Madisonville, TX. And here is a custom song by Philip paralleling the message of the passage.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
My Biggest Problems with the Evangelical Manifesto
First, whatever it does, it does not manifest. Read it. It is a document riddled not even simply with visions and revisions, but with direction changes which serve no purpose greater than either obfuscating or ameliorating the sting of direct criticisms of the evangelical right. What purpose is there to adding “Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman…” to the call for “an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as
abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life” if not simply to avoid sounding as if equating issues of poverty with abortion would reduce abortion’s significance as an issue—which it would do, of course, since part of abortion’s significance (as an issue, not an act) is that it is held uniquely significant as a fully consummated step toward becoming (or being) a culture of death. This document is twenty pages long in order to cloud what could have been a clear call for Evangelicals to embrace the morality of Leftists in American politics.
Second, as indicated in the previous sentence, the “Manifesto” is an effort to make Leftist moral claims more acceptable as Evangelical causes of the day. Whether it is because some signatories or contributors actually hold those positions, such as the Environmentalist’s disdain for capitalism and the free market, or simply because they wish to create a better bridge to a generation which responds negatively to the message of the right, there is little doubt that it is the desire to put alternative moral issues on the table which puts this document on the table. The contest between the free market and socialism in U.S. politics is not just pragmatic. The value of the free market is as surely rooted in Christian respect for the individual (played out in this case as negative rights) as is the call in the "Manifesto" for a Civil Public Square.
Third, and almost inevitably apparent from the call for the Civil Public Square, the document is hypocritical. The claim of the document is that “Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.” Now, there is no reason to assume that defining Evangelicalism, especially in terms non-Christians can understand, must be theological rather than political, and certainly no reason to hold the two as exclusive—not in a world where non-Christians are present and where they play just as great or greater a role in defining terms as believers do. But that is not the problem with this claim. The problem is that this “Manifesto” does exactly what it proscribes. It defines part of what Evangelicals stand for as a call for the Civil Public Square. It is a call for a uniquely Western, indeed, American form of political state. It is not French, where the square is “naked”; and it is not Muslim, where the square is “sacred”, using “Manifesto” terms. It is blatantly American. So the “Manifesto” identifies Evangelicals with the value of a Civil Public Square and promotes that cause univocally--a distinctly political position--while berating the identification of Evangelicals with a moral value of no less significance, the recognition that the law’s discounting of unborn children is morally untenable.
If the framer’s of the “Manifesto” wish other causes could find the same moral imperative in Christian values that abortion and family issues have found, then they should work to attach not just a generic issue, like environmentalism, to Christian values, but a specific solution to that issue. It is not enough to say the doctrine of Creation requires good stewardship. The political issues are about whether it is better to promote environmentalism with nuclear power or with vegetable oil, and so forth; not about whether to promote the environment at all. And it is ridiculous--yes, ridicule-worthy--to compare an argument between nuclear power and vegetable oil with the issue of discounting the lives of the unborn, or of the elderly for that matter.
Hopefully, this opinion is now manifest.
abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life” if not simply to avoid sounding as if equating issues of poverty with abortion would reduce abortion’s significance as an issue—which it would do, of course, since part of abortion’s significance (as an issue, not an act) is that it is held uniquely significant as a fully consummated step toward becoming (or being) a culture of death. This document is twenty pages long in order to cloud what could have been a clear call for Evangelicals to embrace the morality of Leftists in American politics.
Second, as indicated in the previous sentence, the “Manifesto” is an effort to make Leftist moral claims more acceptable as Evangelical causes of the day. Whether it is because some signatories or contributors actually hold those positions, such as the Environmentalist’s disdain for capitalism and the free market, or simply because they wish to create a better bridge to a generation which responds negatively to the message of the right, there is little doubt that it is the desire to put alternative moral issues on the table which puts this document on the table. The contest between the free market and socialism in U.S. politics is not just pragmatic. The value of the free market is as surely rooted in Christian respect for the individual (played out in this case as negative rights) as is the call in the "Manifesto" for a Civil Public Square.
Third, and almost inevitably apparent from the call for the Civil Public Square, the document is hypocritical. The claim of the document is that “Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.” Now, there is no reason to assume that defining Evangelicalism, especially in terms non-Christians can understand, must be theological rather than political, and certainly no reason to hold the two as exclusive—not in a world where non-Christians are present and where they play just as great or greater a role in defining terms as believers do. But that is not the problem with this claim. The problem is that this “Manifesto” does exactly what it proscribes. It defines part of what Evangelicals stand for as a call for the Civil Public Square. It is a call for a uniquely Western, indeed, American form of political state. It is not French, where the square is “naked”; and it is not Muslim, where the square is “sacred”, using “Manifesto” terms. It is blatantly American. So the “Manifesto” identifies Evangelicals with the value of a Civil Public Square and promotes that cause univocally--a distinctly political position--while berating the identification of Evangelicals with a moral value of no less significance, the recognition that the law’s discounting of unborn children is morally untenable.
If the framer’s of the “Manifesto” wish other causes could find the same moral imperative in Christian values that abortion and family issues have found, then they should work to attach not just a generic issue, like environmentalism, to Christian values, but a specific solution to that issue. It is not enough to say the doctrine of Creation requires good stewardship. The political issues are about whether it is better to promote environmentalism with nuclear power or with vegetable oil, and so forth; not about whether to promote the environment at all. And it is ridiculous--yes, ridicule-worthy--to compare an argument between nuclear power and vegetable oil with the issue of discounting the lives of the unborn, or of the elderly for that matter.
Hopefully, this opinion is now manifest.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
The propositional components of this verse are:
(1) Just as
(2) through one man sin entered into the world
(3) and death through sin
(4) and so
(5) death spread to all men because all sinned
The broad flow of the verse is governed by (1) and (4). The words indicated by (1) are important to isolate because they anticipate a parallel or a comparison through (4). (2) and (3) together will be the content joined to (5) by (1) and (4). In other words, there will be a parallel between the intent of “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin” and the intent of “death spread to all men because all sinned.”
Defining the terms: The flow of (2), (3), and (5) hinges on identifying some generic terms which will indicate where Paul is expecting an identifiable (if not fully equivalent) relationship between terms or phrases. So, in (2), “through one man” refers to the act of one man, which will be labeled “A”, for “Adam sinned”. Also in (2), “sin entered into the world” will be “S” for “sin is present”. In (3), “death” will be “D”, for “death is present”, since Paul is borrowing the predicate “entered into the world” from the previous phrase. Those terms are all that is needed to clarify the passage. In order, the terms are:
A = Adam sinned;
S = Sin is present;
D = Death is present.
Now for the argument: The relationship in (2) amounts to “sin entered the world because of one man’s sin”. The relationship in (3) amounts to “death entered the world because sin entered the world”. And the relationship in (5) amounts to “death spread through the whole world because (of) men’s sin(fullness)”. Whether the parenthetical “of” and “fullness” ought to be the reading of the last phrase is indeterminate from the passage. It makes a difference doctrinally, but the difference does not affect how this argument flows at this point—an advantage for interpreting the verse in this case.
Using implication (-->) as an expression of causation, (2) and (3) create the premises of a straightforward syllogism.
(2) A --> S
(3) S --> D.
Now there is no doubt that the verse is chiastic—sin produces death and death comes from sin. But that rhetorical order in no way undermines the syllogism. Paul’s enthymematic conclusion is that Adam’s sin has lead to death’s presence in the world. That it is enthymematic means that while he does not write the words, it is assumed readers will supply the meaning. So the conclusion of the syllogism is:
A --> D.
The question to be resolved is about (5). What does Paul mean by “death spread to all men because all sinned”? It is a very simple statement taken in the context of the argument as described here—in fact, nothing more than a repetition of (3), which is to be expected in the chiasm. So (5) simply repeats the idea that
S --> D.
In the arrangement of the verse in natural language, that repetition makes sense as a substitute for stating the obvious conclusion, since the term “S” is the middle term providing a means for taking the step from one man’s sin, “A”, to death’s presence throughout the world, “D”. Of course, sin is more present as more people appear on the earth, but that increase is not significant regarding the flow of argument in the verse. Similarly, of course, death grows in its numerical impact from its first entrance into the world when there is only one man to die and its count now when there are so many, but that change has no impact on the flow of the argument either.
The point of verse 12 then, has nothing (or relatively little) to do with men facing immediate judgment because of Adam’s sin. Rather, it has adamantly to do with the fact that every man sins as a result of Adam’s sin, and that because of that (sin’s) pernicious presence, death also follows.
Those who care about the doctrinal significance of the difference in those two meanings most likely already understand the weight of this interpretation.
The propositional components of this verse are:
(1) Just as
(2) through one man sin entered into the world
(3) and death through sin
(4) and so
(5) death spread to all men because all sinned
The broad flow of the verse is governed by (1) and (4). The words indicated by (1) are important to isolate because they anticipate a parallel or a comparison through (4). (2) and (3) together will be the content joined to (5) by (1) and (4). In other words, there will be a parallel between the intent of “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin” and the intent of “death spread to all men because all sinned.”
Defining the terms: The flow of (2), (3), and (5) hinges on identifying some generic terms which will indicate where Paul is expecting an identifiable (if not fully equivalent) relationship between terms or phrases. So, in (2), “through one man” refers to the act of one man, which will be labeled “A”, for “Adam sinned”. Also in (2), “sin entered into the world” will be “S” for “sin is present”. In (3), “death” will be “D”, for “death is present”, since Paul is borrowing the predicate “entered into the world” from the previous phrase. Those terms are all that is needed to clarify the passage. In order, the terms are:
A = Adam sinned;
S = Sin is present;
D = Death is present.
Now for the argument: The relationship in (2) amounts to “sin entered the world because of one man’s sin”. The relationship in (3) amounts to “death entered the world because sin entered the world”. And the relationship in (5) amounts to “death spread through the whole world because (of) men’s sin(fullness)”. Whether the parenthetical “of” and “fullness” ought to be the reading of the last phrase is indeterminate from the passage. It makes a difference doctrinally, but the difference does not affect how this argument flows at this point—an advantage for interpreting the verse in this case.
Using implication (-->) as an expression of causation, (2) and (3) create the premises of a straightforward syllogism.
(2) A --> S
(3) S --> D.
Now there is no doubt that the verse is chiastic—sin produces death and death comes from sin. But that rhetorical order in no way undermines the syllogism. Paul’s enthymematic conclusion is that Adam’s sin has lead to death’s presence in the world. That it is enthymematic means that while he does not write the words, it is assumed readers will supply the meaning. So the conclusion of the syllogism is:
A --> D.
The question to be resolved is about (5). What does Paul mean by “death spread to all men because all sinned”? It is a very simple statement taken in the context of the argument as described here—in fact, nothing more than a repetition of (3), which is to be expected in the chiasm. So (5) simply repeats the idea that
S --> D.
In the arrangement of the verse in natural language, that repetition makes sense as a substitute for stating the obvious conclusion, since the term “S” is the middle term providing a means for taking the step from one man’s sin, “A”, to death’s presence throughout the world, “D”. Of course, sin is more present as more people appear on the earth, but that increase is not significant regarding the flow of argument in the verse. Similarly, of course, death grows in its numerical impact from its first entrance into the world when there is only one man to die and its count now when there are so many, but that change has no impact on the flow of the argument either.
The point of verse 12 then, has nothing (or relatively little) to do with men facing immediate judgment because of Adam’s sin. Rather, it has adamantly to do with the fact that every man sins as a result of Adam’s sin, and that because of that (sin’s) pernicious presence, death also follows.
Those who care about the doctrinal significance of the difference in those two meanings most likely already understand the weight of this interpretation.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Genesis 1:2b
Hebrew:
וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהֹום
KJV:
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Comments:
darkness: The parallelism ubiquitous in Hebrew thought and literature continues in this verse. "Without form and void" synonymously parallels "darkness on the face of the deep" as "darkness on the face of the deep" antithetically parallels 'the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters."
the face of the deep: In Psalm 36:5-7, a passage which appeals to the merism from heaven to the deep, the heavens relate to the covenantal mercy of God while the deep relates to His judgments. And, by the way, the same image of hovering (which governs the last phrase of this verse) is present in verse 7 of that Psalm. Of course, the literal void of darkness is replaced by the literal light of the next verse. But the more significant void of darkness is replaced by the active presence and judgment of God throughout the creation (creation both as a specific act and as the whole of existence). Darkness is not evil in this verse, but it does evidence to readers the need for God's presence and judgment.
Expanded Paraphrase:
And the empty darkness penetrated all the way to the bottom of the earth, the depths of the waters.
וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהֹום
KJV:
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Comments:
darkness: The parallelism ubiquitous in Hebrew thought and literature continues in this verse. "Without form and void" synonymously parallels "darkness on the face of the deep" as "darkness on the face of the deep" antithetically parallels 'the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters."
the face of the deep: In Psalm 36:5-7, a passage which appeals to the merism from heaven to the deep, the heavens relate to the covenantal mercy of God while the deep relates to His judgments. And, by the way, the same image of hovering (which governs the last phrase of this verse) is present in verse 7 of that Psalm. Of course, the literal void of darkness is replaced by the literal light of the next verse. But the more significant void of darkness is replaced by the active presence and judgment of God throughout the creation (creation both as a specific act and as the whole of existence). Darkness is not evil in this verse, but it does evidence to readers the need for God's presence and judgment.
Expanded Paraphrase:
And the empty darkness penetrated all the way to the bottom of the earth, the depths of the waters.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Genesis 1:2a
Hebrew:
וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ
KJV:
And the earth was without form, and void;
Comments:
And the earth was: When the "and" in Hebrew is attached to a noun ("earth") rather than a verb (like "was"), it is disjunctive rather than conjunctive. That is, the wording of the text implies a break between verses 1 and 2. However, there is no reason in this text for asserting a gap in history rather than simply in the narrative. For instance, reading verse 1 as a heading and everything following as an account of what the heading introduces makes a much plainer interpretation than construing a epochal gap with a fallen race between verses 1 and 2.
without form, and void: These words are also used in proximity to one another in Jeremiah 4:22-28 (23). There, the Lord appeals to Judah to repent in order to avoid the kind of judgment which would return their land to its state before it was prepared for them. It is not, as some have seen it, a mystical description of the world after an intervening fall before the creation of Adam. Without form and void means just what it says: undefined and empty. "Without form" appears as "desert" in Deuteronomy 32:10 while "void" appears as "emptiness" in Isaiah 34:11. The fact that the cosmos (the heavens and the earth) is primitively without form and void also explains why the days of creation are paralleled as they are. The first three days give form; the last three days fill each form created in the first three. So the first day is light and dark, the fourth day (the first day of the last three) is the sun, moon, and stars--the objects for the form of light. The second day is waters and firmament; the fifth day fish and fowl. The third and sixth days (each of which has two declarations of good rather than one like all the other days) are land/plants and animals/man respectively.
Expanded Paraphrase:
But God had not yet given shape or content to the creation, so it was undefined and empty.
וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ
KJV:
And the earth was without form, and void;
Comments:
And the earth was: When the "and" in Hebrew is attached to a noun ("earth") rather than a verb (like "was"), it is disjunctive rather than conjunctive. That is, the wording of the text implies a break between verses 1 and 2. However, there is no reason in this text for asserting a gap in history rather than simply in the narrative. For instance, reading verse 1 as a heading and everything following as an account of what the heading introduces makes a much plainer interpretation than construing a epochal gap with a fallen race between verses 1 and 2.
without form, and void: These words are also used in proximity to one another in Jeremiah 4:22-28 (23). There, the Lord appeals to Judah to repent in order to avoid the kind of judgment which would return their land to its state before it was prepared for them. It is not, as some have seen it, a mystical description of the world after an intervening fall before the creation of Adam. Without form and void means just what it says: undefined and empty. "Without form" appears as "desert" in Deuteronomy 32:10 while "void" appears as "emptiness" in Isaiah 34:11. The fact that the cosmos (the heavens and the earth) is primitively without form and void also explains why the days of creation are paralleled as they are. The first three days give form; the last three days fill each form created in the first three. So the first day is light and dark, the fourth day (the first day of the last three) is the sun, moon, and stars--the objects for the form of light. The second day is waters and firmament; the fifth day fish and fowl. The third and sixth days (each of which has two declarations of good rather than one like all the other days) are land/plants and animals/man respectively.
Expanded Paraphrase:
But God had not yet given shape or content to the creation, so it was undefined and empty.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Genesis 1:1
Hebrew:
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
KJV:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Comments:
In the beginning: The word for "beginning" is "head", the same as in the Jewish new year, "Rosh" Hashanah. The point is that it indicates priority. It comes first chronologically here. The implication of this creative, chronological priority is also purposive as Paul sees it in Colossians 1:16-18. In John 1:1-3, John appeals to the Septuagint's wording (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) in the first few words then makes it clear that Jesus is the actor in the creation.
God: Moses uses "Elohim" for "God" rather than "Yahweh" in this passage about creation, even though it is likely that the meaning of "Yahweh" is something like "the One who causes to be." As Exodus 6:3 makes clear, however, Yahweh is a name known fully only in covenant. (They were aware of the name before then--hence Abraham naming a place Yahweh-Jireh in Genesis 22--but not in its covenantal sense.) Moses begins to use that name for God in chapter 2:4, where God's specific, relational provision for people begins.
created: Although this act certainly is "ex nihilo" (out of nothing,) that fact is not inherent in the word (which is also used, for instance, about whales in vs 21.) The significance of the word for "created" is that it is only used in reference to the activity of God, and probably has more to do with the newness of His creative acts.
the heavens and the earth: Exodus 20:3-4 reveals how important the distinction between the first and last half of this verse is. There is a Creator-God. And He creates a cosmos. But the two are in no way to be mixed or confused. Also, the phrase "the heavens and the earth" is a merism--a way of including everything by naming the extremes.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Before anything else, God created everything there is, from the heavens above to the earth below.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
KJV:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Comments:
In the beginning: The word for "beginning" is "head", the same as in the Jewish new year, "Rosh" Hashanah. The point is that it indicates priority. It comes first chronologically here. The implication of this creative, chronological priority is also purposive as Paul sees it in Colossians 1:16-18. In John 1:1-3, John appeals to the Septuagint's wording (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) in the first few words then makes it clear that Jesus is the actor in the creation.
God: Moses uses "Elohim" for "God" rather than "Yahweh" in this passage about creation, even though it is likely that the meaning of "Yahweh" is something like "the One who causes to be." As Exodus 6:3 makes clear, however, Yahweh is a name known fully only in covenant. (They were aware of the name before then--hence Abraham naming a place Yahweh-Jireh in Genesis 22--but not in its covenantal sense.) Moses begins to use that name for God in chapter 2:4, where God's specific, relational provision for people begins.
created: Although this act certainly is "ex nihilo" (out of nothing,) that fact is not inherent in the word (which is also used, for instance, about whales in vs 21.) The significance of the word for "created" is that it is only used in reference to the activity of God, and probably has more to do with the newness of His creative acts.
the heavens and the earth: Exodus 20:3-4 reveals how important the distinction between the first and last half of this verse is. There is a Creator-God. And He creates a cosmos. But the two are in no way to be mixed or confused. Also, the phrase "the heavens and the earth" is a merism--a way of including everything by naming the extremes.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Before anything else, God created everything there is, from the heavens above to the earth below.
Friday, March 07, 2008
The Huge Success of Liberalism on Radio? Yes.
Here’s a mistaken idea: practically all of the significant radio hosts on the air today are conservative. A survey of talk show hosts certainly seems to justify that claim. The traditional pantheon of Rush, Laura, Mark, and Shawn create a practically monolithic wall of sound five days a week. While laced with humor, sarcasm, and mostly jesting ad hominems, their presentations are as a matter of course rational, propositional, and argumentative (in the good sense) in nature.
Here’s the origin of the mistake: when liberal ideologues tried to compete with the conservative-talk-show-hosts (hyphenation provided to identify what is an idiomatic expression in our country) on their own playing field they failed miserably. In particular, Air America stank and sank. There was no lack of talent. It was just a terrible idea. How many people willing to think rationally for three hours at a stretch as a form of entertainment are going to buy into the vapid ideas of myopic liberalism? Just like every other example of a conservative/liberal comparison, and in every venue where it is played out Adam Smith’s free market embarrasses Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism. In this case, the pretense of “equal time” succumbs to the knob-turning liberty of intelligent listeners. But if that line of reasoning is at all correct, (and it is arguably so), from where arises the purported mistake?
Here’s the what the conservatives have mistakenly overlooked: liberal radio is alive, well, and a dominant force in American culture. But people have looked for the wrong thing. Why would a movement or ideology whose nature is to oppose standardized truth (and therefore standards of accountability) choose to exchange discourse in a setting of propositional truth? To compete on that stage is to lose before beginning. So liberals reach just as great an audience as conservatives, while promoting their agenda not through propositions and arguments, but through emotive, relational, and culturally provocative entertainment. Howard Stern is not a fluke. He is the means by which liberal ideology actually succeeds at leading a huge portion of the culture away from the normative ideologies of conservatives.
And conservatives should recognize the issue. The only other option is to find after successfully winning all the debates, that they have lost the election and war anyway. After all, the choir already believes.
Here’s the origin of the mistake: when liberal ideologues tried to compete with the conservative-talk-show-hosts (hyphenation provided to identify what is an idiomatic expression in our country) on their own playing field they failed miserably. In particular, Air America stank and sank. There was no lack of talent. It was just a terrible idea. How many people willing to think rationally for three hours at a stretch as a form of entertainment are going to buy into the vapid ideas of myopic liberalism? Just like every other example of a conservative/liberal comparison, and in every venue where it is played out Adam Smith’s free market embarrasses Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism. In this case, the pretense of “equal time” succumbs to the knob-turning liberty of intelligent listeners. But if that line of reasoning is at all correct, (and it is arguably so), from where arises the purported mistake?
Here’s the what the conservatives have mistakenly overlooked: liberal radio is alive, well, and a dominant force in American culture. But people have looked for the wrong thing. Why would a movement or ideology whose nature is to oppose standardized truth (and therefore standards of accountability) choose to exchange discourse in a setting of propositional truth? To compete on that stage is to lose before beginning. So liberals reach just as great an audience as conservatives, while promoting their agenda not through propositions and arguments, but through emotive, relational, and culturally provocative entertainment. Howard Stern is not a fluke. He is the means by which liberal ideology actually succeeds at leading a huge portion of the culture away from the normative ideologies of conservatives.
And conservatives should recognize the issue. The only other option is to find after successfully winning all the debates, that they have lost the election and war anyway. After all, the choir already believes.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Philippians 4:23
Greek:
ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν
KJV:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Comments:
be with you all: Although it does not change anything significantly, there is a difference of Greek texts about whether this verse says “be with your spirit” instead of this phrase in the KJV.
Grace...be with you: How this phrase is taken is very important. Sacerdotalists see this verse as confirmation that the apostles actually granted grace to their followers—in other words, that Paul is actually dispensing grace in this statement as a priest would dispense sanctification with a censer or forgiveness with a hand gesture or a touch. Clearly, however, Paul is actually simply doing in verse 23 what he said everyone else was or ought to be doing in verses 21-22. He is greeting (saying his farewells to) the church with the typical Christian greeting of the day: charis (grace), the perfect word to identify what it means to be in Christ.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Because you know Jesus Christ along with me, He is Lord to all of us. And because you know Him, we share His grace. And I pray that grace will grow in you. His grace has always been true, and it always will be.
ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν
KJV:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Comments:
be with you all: Although it does not change anything significantly, there is a difference of Greek texts about whether this verse says “be with your spirit” instead of this phrase in the KJV.
Grace...be with you: How this phrase is taken is very important. Sacerdotalists see this verse as confirmation that the apostles actually granted grace to their followers—in other words, that Paul is actually dispensing grace in this statement as a priest would dispense sanctification with a censer or forgiveness with a hand gesture or a touch. Clearly, however, Paul is actually simply doing in verse 23 what he said everyone else was or ought to be doing in verses 21-22. He is greeting (saying his farewells to) the church with the typical Christian greeting of the day: charis (grace), the perfect word to identify what it means to be in Christ.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Because you know Jesus Christ along with me, He is Lord to all of us. And because you know Him, we share His grace. And I pray that grace will grow in you. His grace has always been true, and it always will be.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Philippians 4:21-22
Greek:
21 ἀσπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί
22 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας
KJV:
21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.
22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.
Comments:
Salute every saint in Christ Jesus: Paul is being as inclusive as he is specific. Everyone in Christ Jesus is to be included in the greeting. But only those in Christ Jesus are holy, and to be included in the greeting.
brethren...all...they of Caesar's household: Paul's mention of the brethren is likely a reference to others who serve with Him in ministry—some carrying on the ministry while comforting him in his imprisonment. (See chapter 1:14 and 2:25.) Paul then mentions all the believers in Rome. Finally, he refers to those who would be of particular interest to anyone in the Roman Empire, those serving in Caesar's household (probably the emperor Nero) who had become believers.
Expanded Paraphrase: Greet all those who are sanctified because they are in Christ Jesus. Our brothers, those who are with me here, greet you. All of those who are sanctified greet you—most notably, those who are sanctified and serve in Caesar's own house.
21 ἀσπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί
22 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας
KJV:
21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.
22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.
Comments:
Salute every saint in Christ Jesus: Paul is being as inclusive as he is specific. Everyone in Christ Jesus is to be included in the greeting. But only those in Christ Jesus are holy, and to be included in the greeting.
brethren...all...they of Caesar's household: Paul's mention of the brethren is likely a reference to others who serve with Him in ministry—some carrying on the ministry while comforting him in his imprisonment. (See chapter 1:14 and 2:25.) Paul then mentions all the believers in Rome. Finally, he refers to those who would be of particular interest to anyone in the Roman Empire, those serving in Caesar's household (probably the emperor Nero) who had become believers.
Expanded Paraphrase: Greet all those who are sanctified because they are in Christ Jesus. Our brothers, those who are with me here, greet you. All of those who are sanctified greet you—most notably, those who are sanctified and serve in Caesar's own house.
Philippians 4:20
Greek:
20 τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν
KJV:
Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Comments:
God and our Father: Paul first uses a generic reference to God then a personal one. There is, of course, a reason that glory is unto God for eternity simply because of the fact that He is God. But, as should be expected in this letter (consider chapter 2:5-11, for instance), Paul also makes the point that the one unto whom glory flows forever is now personally related and committed to us as our own Father.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Glory to God for ages of ages. But also, glory to our own Father toward ages of ages. May it be so forever.
20 τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν
KJV:
Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Comments:
God and our Father: Paul first uses a generic reference to God then a personal one. There is, of course, a reason that glory is unto God for eternity simply because of the fact that He is God. But, as should be expected in this letter (consider chapter 2:5-11, for instance), Paul also makes the point that the one unto whom glory flows forever is now personally related and committed to us as our own Father.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Glory to God for ages of ages. But also, glory to our own Father toward ages of ages. May it be so forever.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Philippians 4:19
Greek:
ὁ δὲ θεός μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
KJV:
But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
Comments:
God shall supply all your need: This statement rises out of the Philippians' actions toward Paul, for which he gives thanks in verses 13 through 17. Particularly, in verse 17, he desires fruit that may abound to their account (rather than simply the material wealth that comes from their generosity toward him). God supplying all their need is that fruit in this case. The verse is not a generic offering of prosperity, but a specific statement that the Philippians' generosity will not go unrewarded.
my God...your need...his riches: The Philippians had shared with Paul from their wealth on account of their mutual commitment to God. Paul cannot pay them back directly himself (an act which would miss the point of the ministry they had done to him). But something associated with him can: God. They gave from their material wealth to his spiritual need on account of the God they both serve. So Paul is offering back to them from his spiritual wealth (his relationship with God) to meet their spiritual (and other) needs on the basis of God's wealth.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Your wealth supplied my material need because of your commitment to God. In turn, my God will supply your every need through His boundless resources. His wealth is praiseworthy. And He offers it to you the only way He offers all of His grace, through His Son Christ Jesus.
ὁ δὲ θεός μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
KJV:
But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
Comments:
God shall supply all your need: This statement rises out of the Philippians' actions toward Paul, for which he gives thanks in verses 13 through 17. Particularly, in verse 17, he desires fruit that may abound to their account (rather than simply the material wealth that comes from their generosity toward him). God supplying all their need is that fruit in this case. The verse is not a generic offering of prosperity, but a specific statement that the Philippians' generosity will not go unrewarded.
my God...your need...his riches: The Philippians had shared with Paul from their wealth on account of their mutual commitment to God. Paul cannot pay them back directly himself (an act which would miss the point of the ministry they had done to him). But something associated with him can: God. They gave from their material wealth to his spiritual need on account of the God they both serve. So Paul is offering back to them from his spiritual wealth (his relationship with God) to meet their spiritual (and other) needs on the basis of God's wealth.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Your wealth supplied my material need because of your commitment to God. In turn, my God will supply your every need through His boundless resources. His wealth is praiseworthy. And He offers it to you the only way He offers all of His grace, through His Son Christ Jesus.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Philippians 4:18
Greek:
ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ' ὑμῶν ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας θυσίαν δεκτήν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ
KJV:
But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.
Comments:
abound: Paul used this word in verse 12 to say that he could be content in Christ whether lacking or abounding. Here, he is pointing out to the Philippians that he is not lacking, but abounding on account of what they provided for him through Epaphroditus.
well-pleasing to God: Paul changes language in the middle of this verse to draw attention to how the Philippians sent something to him, but by the same act offered a sacrifice to God. It is not the object, the gift, that pleases God, but the act, the giving.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Now I have everything I need. In fact, I have it in abundance. Now that I have received your gift from Epaphroditus, I am full. But what is most important is that in meeting my need, you offered a sweet, aromatic, pleasant sacrifice to God in a way He accepts.
ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ' ὑμῶν ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας θυσίαν δεκτήν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ
KJV:
But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.
Comments:
abound: Paul used this word in verse 12 to say that he could be content in Christ whether lacking or abounding. Here, he is pointing out to the Philippians that he is not lacking, but abounding on account of what they provided for him through Epaphroditus.
well-pleasing to God: Paul changes language in the middle of this verse to draw attention to how the Philippians sent something to him, but by the same act offered a sacrifice to God. It is not the object, the gift, that pleases God, but the act, the giving.
Expanded Paraphrase:
Now I have everything I need. In fact, I have it in abundance. Now that I have received your gift from Epaphroditus, I am full. But what is most important is that in meeting my need, you offered a sweet, aromatic, pleasant sacrifice to God in a way He accepts.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Philippians 4:17
Greek:
οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ τὸν καρπὸν τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν
KJV:
Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
Comments:
to your account: Paul exemplifies here the attitude he taught the Philippians in chapter 2:4. He is not simply looking at his own needs, but also on the needs of others. His need is real, and their giving meets it, as the next verse makes clear. But all the facts about himself do not change his determination to be altruistic rather than self-centered.
Expanded Paraphrase:
I am glad I received this gift from you not because I got what I wanted, but because your accounting will be better since you gave it, and because I want you to receive the benefit of having a giving attitude.
οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ τὸν καρπὸν τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν
KJV:
Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
Comments:
to your account: Paul exemplifies here the attitude he taught the Philippians in chapter 2:4. He is not simply looking at his own needs, but also on the needs of others. His need is real, and their giving meets it, as the next verse makes clear. But all the facts about himself do not change his determination to be altruistic rather than self-centered.
Expanded Paraphrase:
I am glad I received this gift from you not because I got what I wanted, but because your accounting will be better since you gave it, and because I want you to receive the benefit of having a giving attitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)